Home > Community Lounge > Politics > Anyone else distrust Huckabee?

Anyone else distrust Huckabee?

  1. guy's just a little too 'folksy' for me

    i dont like the idea of a preacher politician, because it's difficult in our culture to question a preacher's integrity, and generally you have to at least give them the 'benefit of the doubt'

    i think instead of getting a politician you can trust, you get a politician you cant question
     
  2. he's about as sharp as haroki.
     
  3. I listened to him tonight during the debate. he gave these soaring rhetorical statements but almost everything he said was crap. He said for example that the Founders meant for the leaders to represent the people, not the elites. That's nonsense. Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. His statements are full of BS like this.
     


  4. NO WAY !!!!

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Shit, he'll have to raise taxes if Pres, just to feed the First Family. (Is the girl adopted?)
     
  6. What a bunch of fat asses. Stripes arent slimming anything here.
     
  7. lol. What are those? Patches on the elbows?
     

  8. Dig the shirts. The vertical stripe slimming effect isn't working with the Huckabee men.
     
  9. Huckabee isn't going anywhere. Neither is Mitt Romney.
     
  10. I thought gluttony was a sin. But I guess someone has to take over from fawell.
     
  11. I actually liked several things about him before, but his "performance" last night was one of his worst.

    Alan Keyes was the best by far. LOL

    But seriously, I did actually like Huckabee until I start reading into his record. Social conservative, fiscal LIBERAL. I didn't realize that he is essentially the polar opposite of a Libertarian, that is social liberal, fiscal conservative. Do they even have a party that fits him?
     
  12. By not going anywhere, do you mean not progressing, or not leaving?
     
  13. at least they had the sense to go vertical instead of horizontal

    gotta give them that
     
  14. I didn't even know Keyes was a candidate but he was dazzling. I loved the way he browbeat that woman into letting him talk.

    I'm willing to give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt and accept that he's genuine and not another Bill clinton, but he worries me with his sweeping statements. As for how to describe his philsophy, it seems to me to be pretty close to Bush. Enough said.

    I really think the formats of these debates is a tremendous disservice to the candidates. They look like game show contestants, and there is something demeaning about men who would be leaders of the free world begging a local newspaper editor to speak.
     
  15. Yes, it's called National Socialist Party.
     
  16. Far too many candidates I think is the biggest problem. Given the amount of time candidates have been campaigning now, the field should've been restricted to anyone with greater than 5% in the polls.

    With this many participants it isn't a debate, it is question and answer with many of the same statements being made. Repetitive and monotonous. And you're right, somewhat gameshow-esque.

    And c'mon, newpaper editor as the host? Give me a break.
     
  17. THAT is a scary looking bunch!! Is there any doubt that this fool would be singing Onward Christian Soldiers as he started WW III ???
     
  18. not progressing. we'll forget their names in a year or so.
     
  19. I would not be so sure just yet:

    December 13, 2007
    Election 2008: Florida GOP Primary

    Mike Huckabee 27%
    Mitt Romney 23%
    Rudy Giuliani 19%
    Fred Thompson 9%
    John McCain 6%
    Ron Paul 4%
    Some other candidate 2%

    Mitt Romney’s strategy for winning the Republican nomination was to win the early states and build momentum. Rudy Giuliani’s plan was to accept defeats in the early states and come back strong on January 29 in Florida and in many large states on February 5.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports polling in the state of Florida suggests that Giuliani might need to work on a “Plan B.’ Mike Huckabee now leads in the Sunshine State Primary with 27% of the vote.
    ...
    Huckabee has shaken up the race for the White House with an amazing surge over the past month. He now leads in Iowa and South Carolina. He is tied for the lead in Michigan and consistently near the top nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...rida/election_2008_florida_republican_primary
     
  20. The guy wants to stop-

    Immigration

    Global trade imbalance/ Chinese currency manipulation

    He's got my vote.

    All other issues are moot.
     
  21. Wait a mintue here!

    Are you talking about Huckabee? He wants to stop immigration?

    Huckabee has a history until a couple weeks ago of being incredibly soft on immigration. Government funds for college tuition for illegals in Arkansas. Implying that deportation of illegals isn't the right thing to do. Making statements like, "we can't punish them for what their parents do."

    His entire record is soft on immigration, then suddenly two weeks ago he has a change of heart and comes out with a 9-point plan to completely get rid of all illegals.

    Forget for a moment the idea that his plan calls for 12 million illegals to voluntarily leave. Let's assume that the plan worked and they all left. My state is at 2.7% unemployment and we have a lot of latinos. If the illegals all left, wages would skyrocket overnight causing massive sudden inflation. Yeah, that is a great plan.

    Up until recently I actually liked Huckabee and decided that I might actually vote for him. The further I look into his policies, the more I am convinced that he is incredibly inadequate for the position. This little immigration flip-flop has kinda been the icing on the cake.

    I don't like the fact that Romney changed his stance on abortion but there is a big difference. Romney was pro-choice in his campaign, but sided with pro-life on every bill that hit his desk. His actions have always been pro-life, so I am more likely to believe that being pro-choice was just a front to get elected in a liberal state.

    Huckabee's actions indicate that he is soft on immigration. IMO, once he wins the immigration issue will be a non-issue for him. His ridiculous plan indicates that he is completely out of touch with reality. He's knows that it is impossible to implement, so he can promote it all day long without consequence.
     
  22. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
     
  23. Actually Romney was pro-life then pro-choice and now he is pro-life again. And in all fairness how is he not weak on Immigration if
    As recently as 2005, Romney was describing [immigration] proposals by McCain and others as "reasonable" and "quite different" from amnesty.

    That's of course besides 6 sanctuary cities and one sanctuary mansion in Massachusets. :D
     
  24. I dont understand your first point. I already indicated that he is pro-life and only switched to pro-choice to win the election in Mass. Even then, he always acted in favor of pro-life while in office.

    Sorry. I don't mean to be too rude, but I decided a while ago that anyone mentioning the "Sancutary Mansion" probably isn't informed enough to debate with.

    Even the debate analysts after that statement was made said, "That was a ridiculous statement and the American voters are too intelligent to fall for something like that." In reality, Romney did everything he should have done in that situation. He fired the company. If everyone did that, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem here.

    As to your other point, to my knowledge there are 2-3 sanctuary cities in Mass. Anyway, the number is meaningless. The question is whether he supported them. He vetoed in-state tuition reduction for illegals. He authorized troopers to enforce immigration laws. He protested issuance of drivers liscences to illegals. He fired a company under his employ when it was found that they employ illegals. He openly criticizes the idea that sanctuary cities should be endorsed by the federal governement, and his new plan is to reduce federal funding to cities on those grounds. The only thing he didn't do as Gov. was reduce funding to the sanctuary cities, but that isn't the same as endorsing their status.

    Anyway, in my other post I wasn't saying that Romney was hard on immigration. I was saying that Huckabee is flip-flopping on immigration. My reference to Romney was directed to the fact that his actions have always indicated his true thoughts on abortion. I would say the same thing about Huckabee. I believe that his actions have already shown that he doesn't consider illegal immigration a problem. But it seems that you completely missed the point of my post.
     
  25. No you were not rude but you were wrong, Romney did not fire the company until the issue came up during the debate:

    Here is what he said: "After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions,” Romney said in the statement. “They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status. We personally met with the company in order to inform them about the importance of this matter. The owner of the company guaranteed us, in very certain terms, that the company would be in total compliance with the law going forward."


    Standing on stage at a Republican debate on the Gulf Coast of Florida last week, Mitt Romney repeatedly lashed out at rival Rudy Giuliani for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants in New York City.

    Yet, the very next morning, on Thursday, at least two illegal immigrants stepped out of a hulking maroon pickup truck in the driveway of Romney’s Belmont house, then proceeded to spend several hours raking leaves, clearing debris from Romney’s tennis court, and loading the refuse back on to the truck.

    In fact, their work was part of a regular pattern. Despite a Globe story in Dec. 2006 that highlighted Romney’s use of illegal immigrants to tend to his lawn, Romney continued to employ the same landscaping company – until today. The landscaping company, in turn, continued to employ illegal immigrants.


    http://flapsblog.com/?p=5987
     
  26. That is a ridiculous argument that in my opinion lends credibility to his anti-illegal-immigrant stance. He acknowledges that he made it clear to the company that he wouldn't accept their practice of employing illegals. He was assured that they wouldn't. When he was informed that they were, he fired them. What's the issue.

    I don't expect my state governor to break into the employment contracts of each company he hires to run a background check on each employee. Like I said before, anyone holding to that argument is in my mind not even worth debating.
     
  27. He did not find out that the company he hired was using illegals, someone else did it for him. OK, it was not his job, I can buy this argument. But then he did not fire the law-breaking company and did not report it to the INS, he had a talk with the owner of the company instead. He did not follow up, did not verify that the company complied with his requirements, he took the owner's word for it. For more than a year he did absolutely nothing to make sure that the company abandoned its illegal activities. He only took actions when someone else pointed out once again that the company was still breaking the law and only because it interfered with his campaign.

    He did not do due diligence, he did not even do bare minimum to make sure that his contractor was not using illegal immigrants. Frankly I don't have any problem with this situation and I don't have any problem with Romney but him and his supporters accusing others of being weak on immigration is a tad hypocritical given that he did not move a finger to clean up his own backyard.
     
  28. Granted, he didn't go the extra mile to investigate the situation. How many of these candidates do you think have anything to do with things like landscaping crews that rake their leaves?

    When you consider his immigration record I think he has a right to challenge some of his opponents on immigration. It's called campaigning. Consider the two he is making comments about.

    One is the mayor of the biggest sanctuary city in the country. The other pushed for special privileges of illegals in his state. He has the duty to point out these issues.
     
  29. If he did not want anything to do with landscaping crews he should have fired the law-breaking company on the spot and reported it to the INS or at the very least he should have followed up on the problem and made absolutely sure the company complied. He should have done it to avoid any appearance of impropriety if for no other reason. ...Unfortunately I disagree that he did not go the extra mile. He did not go the extra inch.

    I do agree that he has every right to challenge his opponents on immigration, I also think his opponents have just as much right to defend their record as vigorously as you defend Romney's and argue that NYC was not a sanctuary city and giving grants to children was the right thing to do. Moreover his opponents have a right to point out that they found illegals in Romney's own backyard and not once but twice and that in 2005 he considered Bush/McCain immigration proposal "reasonable" and not an amnesty.
     
  30. You mean he is another lying corrupt politician that will claim whatever he needs to get his votes, even though his record does not support his stance?

    I'm just wondering, how many more of these cookie cutter candidates does it take for people to realize that it's just a show. They don't care about the issues that matter to you, they never have and never will.

    Huckabee has only impressed me on two topics, healthcare, or more specifically, health and claim to remove the IRS. However, his record shows that he just pays lip service. He is another Giuliani, with a different suit.
     
  31. Yeah that was kinda my point. Almost without exception, every candidate has changed direction on certain points to either differentiate themselves, or align themselves. It is much more valuable to look at their record rather than their words.

    We all know that most of what a candidate promises will not and should not be realized during their term in office. Getting elected is a matter of appeal. Candidates must pander to the audience. A president who is bent on enforcing all campaign promises regardless of the present situation is retarded. Candidates should feel free to represent ideals, knowing full well that most of it will not come to pass.

    Take Ron Paul for example. I love what the guy says. But in reality he has accomplished very little considering the amount of time he's been in office. He has grid-lock written across his forehead. Right now we need someone who can unite Washington and accomplish things regardless of congress majority. Ron Paul can't do that. His worst nightmare is a democrat majority. He would get absolutely nothing done. But in the end, the reason he won't win the primaries is because he doesn't have mass appeal. He has niche appeal.
     
  32. Was reading Huckabee's FA article online, link below:

    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080...merica-s-priorities-in-the-war-on-terror.html

    haven't made it all the way through, but thought to myself, this sounds reasonable, perhaps palatable to a paleoconservative like myself.

    However, note who is reputed to be his foreign policy advisor - Frank Gaffney - one of the original PNAC signatories and thus a neocon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney

    *sigh* and just when I thought we were going to get a moderate republican candidate that I actually could get excited about.
     
  33. I'm voting for the first guy to come out and say that we're going to kick the Chinese in the ass and tariff every single piece of 5hit they send over here until they fluctuate their currency.

    They're the scummiest scumbags we deal with.
     
  34. ...But this populist revolt is not just about religion. Mr. Huckabee calls himself the candidate of Main Street, taking on a party that has become "a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street." He's a throwback to a kind of conservatism that had a home in the Democratic Party before it embraced the counterculture – and created Reagan Democrats.

    In a time of mounting economic anxiety, Mr. Huckabee could do worse than to position himself as an outsider critic of a party that just last week blocked an exceedingly modest tax increase on big oil companies to fund research into alternative fuels. His about-face on immigration indicates that he is either an opportunist, or that he is beginning to understand that the conservative grassroots is tired of globalizing Washington elites favoring business interests over their countrymen's common good.

    And Mr. Huckabee is hitting the demographic sweet spot in a changing conservative coalition. A comprehensive 2005 survey by the non-partisan Pew Center found most Americans who identify with the GOP favor policies that are socially conservative but economically progressive. A significant number of conservative Democrats identify with this basic outlook – and conceivably would be open to voting for him over Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, two social arch-liberals.

    Mr. Huckabee probably isn't the best advocate for populist conservatism at the moment. On policy, he too often seems to be winging it. Because of his relative unpreparedness, he might not make it to the general election. But his legacy will define conservative politics for the next political era.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/mike_huckabees_legacy.html
     
  35. I wrote a fairly damning critique of ron paul along the lines you mention, on another thread but i have to admit, that although he's never gotten anything done about the things he's for, it is true that he's voted against everything he says he's against.

    as a congressman, that's nice, but it doent mean much.

    a 'Dr No' president, would stil be an improvement, as BS needs 2/3rds to pass

    since about everything bush and clinton have done is bad, doing nothing would be refreshing
     
  36. and richard haass who is president of the CFR... not to mention the CFR published Huckabee's letter on foreign policy. the guy has scum written all over him. he is bought and paid for by the same neocons that lied us into the illegal Iraq war. go fk yourself doodoo... its not going to work.
     
  37. I have some trouble with this. While many Republican voters favor conservative social positions, I think the majority are hardly economic "progressives", which in media-speak means favor raising taxes. There is no doubt that many in the Evangelical/family values wing of the party are in favor of "populist" tax policies, and that fact has caused a lot of tension with other members of the Republican coalition. That wing of the party is hardly a majority, although it may be in Iowa.

    A coalition works only if you do not step on other coalition members' toes. When Evangelicals suddenly start talking "progressive" economics, they are playing into the Democrats' hands. The basic rule of the republican coalition is that each member gets its way on a set of key issues. For Evangelicals, it is abortion and judges. Tax policy belongs to the low tax, opportunity society Republicans. Many members of that group favor liberal social policies, as do the national security/neo-con wing, but they keep their thoughts to themselves to preserve the coalition. Evangelicals would be wise to do the same thing.
     
  38. Just when I was beginning to wonder if I was being a tad too harsh on Huck, Ann Coulter sets me straight:

    THERE'S A HUCKABEE BORN EVERY MINUTE
    December 19, 2007


    Despite the overwhelming popular demand for another column on Ron Radosh's review of Stan Evans' book, this week's column will address the urgent matter of evangelical Christians getting blamed for Mike Huckabee.

    To paraphrase the Jews, this is "bad for the evangelicals."

    As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led.

    The media are transfixed by the fact that Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution. Neither do I, for reasons detailed in approximately one-third of my No. 1 New York Times best-selling book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

    I went on a massive book tour for Godless just last year, including a boffo opening interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today," a one-on-one, full-hour interview with Chris Matthews on "Hardball," and various other hostile interviews from the organs of establishmentarian opinion.

    But I didn't get a single question from them on the topic of one-third of my book.

    If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me? I can also name any number of mathematicians, scientists and authors who have rejected Darwin's discredited theory and would be happy to rap with them about it.

    But they won't ask us, because, unlike the cornpone, we won't immediately collapse under gentle questioning. It's one thing to be "easily led" by the pope. Huckabee is easily led by Larry King.

    Asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.

    I don't understand that. Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it's a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions -- as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism -- does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?

    Admittedly, the truth about Darwinism would be jarring in textbooks that promote other frauds and hoaxes, such as "man-made global warming." Why confuse the little tykes with fact-based textbooks?

    Huckabee immediately dropped his alleged skepticism of Darwinism and turned to his main goal as president of the United States: teaching children more art and music. This, he said, was his "passion" because "I think our education system is failing kids because we're not touching the right side of the brain -- the creative side. We are focusing on the left side."

    I think I know someone who has just read an article in Reader's Digest about left brain/right brain differences!

    When not evolving his position on Darwinism, Huckabee insults gays by pointlessly citing the Bible's rather pointed remarks about sodomy -- fitting the MSM's image of evangelicals sitting around all day denouncing gays. (Which is just so unfair. I'm usually done denouncing gays by 10:30 a.m., 11 tops.)

    And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court's lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.

    In the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a case only 17 years old (and with a name chosen by God) -- despite the allegedly hallowed principle of "stare decisis." As explained in Godless, stare decisis means: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

    Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence was so insane that the lower courts completely ignored it. Since then, courts have disregarded Lawrence in order to uphold state laws banning the sale of vibrators, restricting gays' rights to adopt, prohibiting people from having sex with their adult ex-stepchildren, and various other basic human rights specifically mentioned in our Constitution.

    Lawrence was promptly denounced not only by Republican governors and Christian groups across the nation, but also by anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills to see that the Constitution says nothing about a right to sodomy.

    But when Huckabee was asked about this jaw-dropping ruling from the high court, he said the majority opinion "probably was appropriate."

    He made these remarks on his monthly radio show, "Ask the Governor," as was widely reported at the time, including a July 3, 2003, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article titled, "Huckabee Says Sex Lives of Adults Not State Affair." I stress that "Ask the Governor" was not a wacky, comedy-based, morning zoo-type radio program. It was supposed to be serious.

    Employing the ACLU's "any law I don't like is unconstitutional" test, Huckabee said he supported the court's decision because a law "that prohibited private behavior among adults" would be difficult to enforce. Next he'll be telling us which of the Ten Commandments he considers "nonstarters."

    How about adults who privately operate meth labs? How about a private contract between an employer and employee for a salary less than the minimum wage?

    Hey! How about adults privately smoking cigarettes in their homes? Nope, Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking but thinks state laws banning sodomy are "probably" unconstitutional.

    Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a spirited dissent in Lawrence, joined by Justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, raising the somewhat embarrassing point that homosexual sodomy is not technically mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise, our Founding Fathers would have been our "Founding Life Partners."

    Scalia said that inasmuch as the Texas law furthered "the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity," the court's ruling placed all these laws in jeopardy.

    Most important, Scalia said: "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." At least no court has tried to legalize gay marriage since that 2003 ruling, so we can be grateful for -- Hey, wait a minute!

    Huckabee claims he opposes gay marriage and says Scalia is his favorite justice, but he supports a Supreme Court decision denounced by Scalia for paving the way to a "constitutional right" to gay marriage. I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.

    No wonder Huckabee is the evangelical liberals like.
     
  39. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OyDKZK6noSA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OyDKZK6noSA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
     
  40. I thought that was the definition of an evangelical ?